If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week UK)   Minister suggests raping schoolgirls is preferable to consensual gay relationships. Which minister? The Minister for Ethics and Integrity, of course   (theweek.co.uk) divider line 344
    More: Ironic, morals, interpersonal relationship, David Furnish, ministers  
•       •       •

12577 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Oct 2013 at 8:12 PM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



344 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-15 11:28:30 PM

GungFu: [i44.tinypic.com image 779x695]

If none of us here have had our 'whoppers' shattered by the act of bum-shafting, I don't think our views are valid.

/bum = arse = ass = fanny


um in England isn't fanny the front butt
 
2013-10-15 11:29:26 PM

GungFu: [i44.tinypic.com image 779x695]

If none of us here have had our 'whoppers' shattered by the act of bum-shafting, I don't think our views are valid.

/bum = arse = ass = fanny


"Bum shafting shattered my whopper"

It'd be funny is people weren't being lynched at headlines like this.
 
2013-10-15 11:29:46 PM

GungFu: If none of us here have had our 'whoppers' shattered by the act of bum-shafting, I don't think our views are valid.

/bum = arse = ass = fanny


ass = fanny?

Not in a British show, it isn't.
 
2013-10-15 11:30:35 PM

grumpfuff: If you think I'm determined in my arguing of a proper interpretation now, you should see me engaging Christians about the sin of Sodom. And Onan, for that matter.


Naw dude keep it up anytime people wanna talk bible it gets crazy Worst part is no one can decide what it says..
 
2013-10-15 11:30:41 PM

grumpfuff: That's not what the story is about. Think of how annoying it is when Young Earth people say "Evolution is just a theory, so there's no proof." Their starting premise is wrong, and so their conclusion is invalid. You're doing the same thing - your starting premise is invalid, so your conclusion is invalid. Call them stupid, by all means. I'm not stopping you from doing that. All I'm arguing for is calling them stupid for the right reasons. Example in this case: Thinking offering your daughters for your neighbors to rape is a good example of hospitality. The daughters thinking they were the last people on earth, and so had to get daddy drunk and rape him. God saying he'd save Sodom if 10 righteous people were found, and when they were, he destroyed it anyway. There's plenty to chose from without making shiat up.



The story is about how the people in the cities were all evil and the rural farmers were the good pure guys who adhered to Gawd's word.  And in any case, I really don't give a good god damn about what story this knuckle-dragger uses to justify rape.  He could use Dora the Explorer and it wouldn't really matter to me.
 
2013-10-15 11:33:11 PM

jaytkay: Rick Warren has repeatedly affirmed that he doesn't support the bill, but he also has a history of telling Ugandans that homosexuality is not a human right, and that it's comparable to pedophilia. Pastor Warren may sincerely be horrified by the thought of the government rounding up and executing homosexuals, but he's the one whose organization and African mission were and are deeply involved in training the anti-gay religious leaders leading the charge for this bill. It's his allies in Africa who are directly responsible for this.


This is of a piece with the Inquisitors who handed "heretics" and "witches" over to the secular authorities to be burned at the stake, piously explaining that the Holy Mother Church® doesn't spill blood, and with george w. bush and crew who handed taxi drivers "terrorists" over to Syria on a pinky-swear that they wouldn't be tortured.
 
2013-10-15 11:39:14 PM

grumpfuff: Difficulty: They were Jewish stories before Christianity or Islam even existed.


Which has no bearing on Islamic and Christian traditions, because they have their own variants of each story. It's like with Greek and Roman deities - it's not as though the Greek interpretation of the gods is more "proper" than the Roman interpretation just because it came first. They're two separate mythologies.

If you think I'm determined in my arguing of a proper interpretation now, you should see me engaging Christians about the sin of Sodom. And Onan, for that matter.

As far as I can tell, the people arguing with me aren't even Christian, nor are they disputing the nature of beliefs in mainstream Christianity. My position is that the idea of a "proper interpretation" is incoherent when talking about poorly written fiction; the most I'll do is note what the prevailing view is based on what the majority or plurality of actual adherents to that particular religious tradition believe.
 
2013-10-15 11:44:45 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: grumpfuff: If you think I'm determined in my arguing of a proper interpretation now, you should see me engaging Christians about the sin of Sodom. And Onan, for that matter.

Naw dude keep it up anytime people wanna talk bible it gets crazy Worst part is no one can decideagree what it says..



Lots of people have decided what the Bible means they just almost never agree.

When should someone be Baptized, how should they be Baptized, what should the Pastor say: you would think that something this important to Christianity would be agreed on by Christians
 
2013-10-15 11:45:29 PM

J. Frank Parnell: mgshamster: The Hindu holy books have not been incorporated into the Christian holy book.

You might be surprised.


I just might be. Care to elaborate?

I'm fairly familiar with the bible, as well as many other European and middle eastern myths and stories, but I'm not too familiar with Hinduism.

/Genuinely curious
 
2013-10-15 11:45:32 PM

pueblonative: The story is about how the people in the cities were all evil and the rural farmers were the good pure guys who adhered to Gawd's word.


Well, at least you're getting close.

And in any case, I really don't give a good god damn about what story this knuckle-dragger uses to justify rape.


I didn't see that story mentioned in TFA.I don't know where he's getting that justification, but I do know that rape is never used as punishment in the Bible.

He could use Dora the Explorer and it wouldn't really matter to me.


....what Dora are you watching?

/yes, I know it was sarcasm
 
2013-10-15 11:48:35 PM

Biological Ali: My position is that the idea of a "proper interpretation" is incoherent when talking about poorly written fiction; the most I'll do is note what the prevailing view is based on what the majority or plurality of actual adherents to that particular religious tradition believe.


Religious scholars(even atheist ones) would disagree with you. No one cares if the story actually happened, what is important is the message the story is trying to convey. Think of it like a morality fable. Let's use Aesop as an example.

We can all agree the story of the tortoise and the hare never happened. But we can still read the story, and agree that the moral of the story is that "Slow and steady wins the race."
 
2013-10-15 11:49:08 PM

grumpfuff: I didn't see that story mentioned in TFA.I don't know where he's getting that justification, but I do know that rape is never used as punishment in the Bible.


Uh, David's concubines would like to have a word with you about that. . .

2 Samuel 12:11for the cross reference
 
2013-10-15 11:49:26 PM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Must be because from what I read you're supporting religious fundies. Oh wait others are worried about you as well.


As far as I can see, you're the only one who's made this particular accusation.
 
2013-10-15 11:51:52 PM

mgshamster: J. Frank Parnell: mgshamster: The Hindu holy books have not been incorporated into the Christian holy book.

You might be surprised.

I just might be. Care to elaborate?

I'm fairly familiar with the bible, as well as many other European and middle eastern myths and stories, but I'm not too familiar with Hinduism.

/Genuinely curious


I do know there are some who believe that Jesus spent at least part of his time during the missing years that are unaccounted for in the Bible(ages 12-30 or something like that) studying with Hindu scholars in India, and there are stories of a holy man in India at around the time Jesus was supposedly alive named something like "Iasas" or some such.

I don't know if that's what he was referring to, but the idea is generally dismissed by scholars.
 
2013-10-15 11:53:45 PM

anfrind: Richard C Stanford: Wait, by this logic a straight who is raped by a homo becomes homo. But that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't getting raped by a homo make you desire women more? So, wait, the cure for the gay is for a homo to be raped by a homo so he or she becomes streight... Holy crap, I've discovered the cure for the gay! And I'm patenting this! I'm gonna make a fortune!

It depends on the combination of both sexual orientation and gender:

If a gay man has sex with a straight man, the straight man becomes gay.
If a lesbian has sex with a straight man, the lesbian becomes straight.

This is what the Ugandan minister actually believes.


Reminds me of this historical gem:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-10-15 11:56:49 PM

grumpfuff: Religious scholars(even atheist ones) would disagree with you. No one cares if the story actually happened, what is important is the message the story is trying to convey.


Sure, and most Christians would disagree with people who try and whitewash the sexual immorality aspect of the Sodom and Gomorrah story.

Think of it like a morality fable. Let's use Aesop as an example.

We can all agree the story of the tortoise and the hare never happened. But we can still read the story, and agree that the moral of the story is that "Slow and steady wins the race."


Okay, sure - let's start with that story. Now, imagine that a later author took that story, and added another part, writing about (for instance) how the tortoise won because drugged the hare without his knowledge. The story would now have a completely different moral, and from an empirical standpoint would not be any less correct than the former (since they're both ultimately works of fiction).
 
2013-10-15 11:57:45 PM

pueblonative: grumpfuff: I didn't see that story mentioned in TFA.I don't know where he's getting that justification, but I do know that rape is never used as punishment in the Bible.

Uh, David's concubines would like to have a word with you about that. . .

2 Samuel 12:11for the cross reference


11"This is what the Lord says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight. 12You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.'"


God makes this threat, yes. But David repents, and if you read the rest of the chapter, God doesn't actually follow through with it. (He does kill David's son though, so there's that)

2 Samuel 12: 24-25

24Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and he went to her and made love to her. She gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon. The Lord loved him; 25and because the Lord loved him, he sent word through Nathan the prophet to name him Jedidiah.
 
2013-10-15 11:57:54 PM

tjassen: anfrind: Richard C Stanford: Wait, by this logic a straight who is raped by a homo becomes homo. But that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't getting raped by a homo make you desire women more? So, wait, the cure for the gay is for a homo to be raped by a homo so he or she becomes streight... Holy crap, I've discovered the cure for the gay! And I'm patenting this! I'm gonna make a fortune!

It depends on the combination of both sexual orientation and gender:

If a gay man has sex with a straight man, the straight man becomes gay.
If a lesbian has sex with a straight man, the lesbian becomes straight.

This is what the Ugandan minister actually believes.

Reminds me of this historical gem:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x595]


Looks so professionallistic and scientifical, don't it?
 
2013-10-15 11:58:03 PM

tjassen: anfrind: Richard C Stanford: Wait, by this logic a straight who is raped by a homo becomes homo. But that doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't getting raped by a homo make you desire women more? So, wait, the cure for the gay is for a homo to be raped by a homo so he or she becomes streight... Holy crap, I've discovered the cure for the gay! And I'm patenting this! I'm gonna make a fortune!

It depends on the combination of both sexual orientation and gender:

If a gay man has sex with a straight man, the straight man becomes gay.
If a lesbian has sex with a straight man, the lesbian becomes straight.

This is what the Ugandan minister actually believes.

Reminds me of this historical gem:
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x595]


vas ist das
 
2013-10-15 11:58:22 PM

grumpfuff: God makes this threat, yes. But David repents, and if you read the rest of the chapter, God doesn't actually follow through with it. (He does kill David's son though, so there's that)


Sure he doesn't....
 
2013-10-16 12:01:21 AM

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: Religious scholars(even atheist ones) would disagree with you. No one cares if the story actually happened, what is important is the message the story is trying to convey.

Sure, and most Christians would disagree with people who try and whitewash the sexual immorality aspect of the Sodom and Gomorrah story.


Not their story, so I don't particularly care. Just like I wouldn't accept someone re-interpretting the Tortoise and the Hare to make the moral..idk.."Greed is good!", no matter how many people accepted the re-write.


Think of it like a morality fable. Let's use Aesop as an example.

We can all agree the story of the tortoise and the hare never happened. But we can still read the story, and agree that the moral of the story is that "Slow and steady wins the race."

Okay, sure - let's start with that story. Now, imagine that a later author took that story, and added another part, writing about (for instance) how the tortoise won because drugged the hare without his knowledge. The story would now have a completely different moral, and from an empirical standpoint would not be any less correct than the former (since they're both ultimately works of fiction).


You're absolutely right. The only problem with this analogy is that the Christians did not re-write the story of Sodom(or any of the Old Testament for that matter). They kept it the same as it was. They even kept the same interpretation until Augustine came around.
 
2013-10-16 12:01:32 AM
This thread has somehow devolved degenerated into a discussion about whether the horns of the unicorns are black or white.
 
2013-10-16 12:04:00 AM

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: Difficulty: They were Jewish stories before Christianity or Islam even existed.

Which has no bearing on Islamic and Christian traditions, because they have their own variants of each story. It's like with Greek and Roman deities - it's not as though the Greek interpretation of the gods is more "proper" than the Roman interpretation just because it came first. They're two separate mythologies.

If you think I'm determined in my arguing of a proper interpretation now, you should see me engaging Christians about the sin of Sodom. And Onan, for that matter.

As far as I can tell, the people arguing with me aren't even Christian, nor are they disputing the nature of beliefs in mainstream Christianity. My position is that the idea of a "proper interpretation" is incoherent when talking about poorly written fiction; the most I'll do is note what the prevailing view is based on what the majority or plurality of actual adherents to that particular religious tradition believe.


Right so you are claiming devils advocate you still look like a dick. And well I was a christian and I was baptized by immersion even though my church didn't believe in that. A baptist church had to do it. Anyway you're so far off topic it's sad but let's go on. Do you believe whatever the mainstream believes is the truth?.Yea I siad I was done with you but now I maybe am.
 
2013-10-16 12:04:35 AM

pueblonative: grumpfuff: God makes this threat, yes. But David repents, and if you read the rest of the chapter, God doesn't actually follow through with it. (He does kill David's son though, so there's that)

Sure he doesn't....


Read the whole chapter if you don't believe me. It makes no mention of God doing it. Jewish people were big on the whole punishment thing, if God had carried through, they would have mentioned it. (yea yea, difficulty: story probably never happened)

Plus there's the whole couple verses later part I mentioned where it specifically says David still has his wife.
 
2013-10-16 12:05:06 AM

spongeboob: tinfoil-hat maggie: grumpfuff: If you think I'm determined in my arguing of a proper interpretation now, you should see me engaging Christians about the sin of Sodom. And Onan, for that matter.

Naw dude keep it up anytime people wanna talk bible it gets crazy Worst part is no one can decideagree what it says..


Lots of people have decided what the Bible means they just almost never agree.

When should someone be Baptized, how should they be Baptized, what should the Pastor say: you would think that something this important to Christianity would be agreed on by Christians


Yea, no clue it was 13-14 for me?
 
2013-10-16 12:10:07 AM

Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

Though we've seen softer, fuzzier versions of Christianity reinterpret the idea of the cities' primary sin as being generally about treating neighbours poorly rather than having gay sex (a somewhat recent development, it would seem), that particular part of the story is nonetheless very specifically about gay sex. The argument there being that raping young girls isn't as bad as consensual gay sex, of course.

The

angels weren't consenting. The point is that consensual straight sex with a virgin is better than gay ass rape of an angel.

Now personally, I can't speak to one of those, but the one I CAN speak to wasn't bad at all.
 
2013-10-16 12:11:29 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Biological Ali: tinfoil-hat maggie: That would be the story of Sodom, I forget who the guy was but anyway the story really isn't about gay sex it's about the hospitality rules from back then, that Sodom was known to break and distrusted and killed strangers coming to their city. The hospitality rules at the time were if strangers come to you door you must offer them protection, food and water, etc.

Though we've seen softer, fuzzier versions of Christianity reinterpret the idea of the cities' primary sin as being generally about treating neighbours poorly rather than having gay sex (a somewhat recent development, it would seem), that particular part of the story is nonetheless very specifically about gay sex. The argument there being that raping young girls isn't as bad as consensual gay sex, of course.

The angels weren't consenting. The point is that consensual straight sex with a virgin is better than gay ass rape of an angel.

Now personally, I can't speak to one of those, but the one I CAN speak to wasn't bad at all.


Why would you rape an angel?

/kidding
//hello again
 
2013-10-16 12:12:18 AM
fark this shiat.

/UFP can't get here fast enough.
 
2013-10-16 12:15:23 AM

grumpfuff: You're absolutely right. The only problem with this analogy is that the Christians did not re-write the story of Sodom(or any of the Old Testament for that matter). They kept it the same as it was. They even kept the same interpretation until Augustine came around.


I posted a link earlier to a verse from a Christian text, which said plainly that the primary sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual immorality. This, roughly, is what most Christians believe (especially those in the parts of the world TFA talks about).

Now, I don't know if you're trying to question the authenticity of that text or what, but it doesn't look like this conversation's going anywhere. I've gotten into similar arguments with people who argue that the death penalty for apostates isn't a part of "true" Islam, and it always ends with me pointing out that the way they personally choose to interpret that particular hadith doesn't have any bearing on what the plurality of Muslims actually believe, and it's the latter which presents a more meaningful of what "Islam" stands for.
 
2013-10-16 12:19:35 AM
Heya grumpfuff. (I'm just popping in ferra sec.)

I think we can all agree that this Ugandan "minister" is an unchristian dangerous whackjob and is not representative of the typical American Christian.

Also, let's not forget that this is the continent that still does genital mutilation of young women and is riddled with rampant rape with or without some back bush preacher condoning it. I don't know where they get their violent and extreme sexual handgups, but it ain't from the good book.
 
2013-10-16 12:22:10 AM

mgshamster: J. Frank Parnell: mgshamster: The Hindu holy books have not been incorporated into the Christian holy book.

You might be surprised.

I just might be. Care to elaborate?

I'm fairly familiar with the bible, as well as many other European and middle eastern myths and stories, but I'm not too familiar with Hinduism.

/Genuinely curious


The trinity is straight up Hinduism, and some other things which would take more explaining. Christ and Krisha also have essentially the same teachings, with even some similarities in their lives.
 
2013-10-16 12:22:41 AM
0-media-cdn.foolz.us

/wanted for questioning
 
2013-10-16 12:25:00 AM

BojanglesPaladin: The angels weren't consenting. The point is that consensual straight sex with a virgin is better than gay ass rape of an angel.

Now personally, I can't speak to one of those, but the one I CAN speak to wasn't bad at all.


The angels themselves were never in any danger (even assuming they can be referred to as sentient beings like humans - I'm not sure how they're classified in Christian mythology).

In fact, the angles themselves wanted to "sleep" out in the open, and it was Lot himself who insisted that they go inside his house, which precipitated that standoff. I don't think the angels themselves ever had any contact with the crowd, either to consent to or rebuff their advances, right up till the point where they blinded everyone.
 
2013-10-16 12:26:39 AM

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: You're absolutely right. The only problem with this analogy is that the Christians did not re-write the story of Sodom(or any of the Old Testament for that matter). They kept it the same as it was. They even kept the same interpretation until Augustine came around.

I posted a link earlier to a verse from a Christian text, which said plainly that the primary sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was sexual immorality. This, roughly, is what most Christians believe (especially those in the parts of the world TFA talks about).


That really doesn't change the original story, or it's interpretation. Using our earlier example of the Tortoise and the Hare, I can write a book right now that says "No, actually, the moral of the story is that turtles are faster than rabbits" (yea, I'm getting tired, can you tell?) That doesn't make my interpretation of the story right.
 

Now, I don't know if you're trying to question the authenticity of that text or what, but it doesn't look like this conversation's going anywhere.

I'm not questioning it's authenticity, I'm saying it's not relevant to the interpretation. In other words, I'm not doubting that Christians believe this interpretation given in Jude. I'm just saying they're wrong. There's a Lewis Black quote I'm fond of using in this situation. "They're interpreting our book. And they're doing it wrong! But it's not their fault. It's not their book."

I've gotten into similar arguments with people who argue that the death penalty for apostates isn't a part of "true" Islam, and it always ends with me pointing out that the way they personally choose to interpret that particular hadith doesn't have any bearing on what the plurality of Muslims actually believe, and it's the latter which presents a more meaningful of what "Islam" stands for.

I really don't know enough of Islam to even try to comment on this, so I won't.
 
2013-10-16 12:40:31 AM
Couldn't get past post 150 or so.

It doesn't matter what you, me, or your scholar of choice thinks passage x is about.

What matters is what the people who are followers of religion believe it is about, and how their beliefs are acted on. They ARE christians and they ARE honestly acting on what they believe the bible says.

To view it any other way is to go hiking into a morass of circular reasoning and arguing with different assumptions then wondering why a different conclusion is reached.

If you want an objective view: there is no evidence of a god. Everyone picking up the writings of man and declaring them divine truths, laws, etc is equally silly and merely using their interpretations as a means to their end.
 
2013-10-16 12:40:38 AM

aagrajag: BolshyGreatYarblocks: aagrajag: Rambino: aagrajag:

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D? I don't like cauliflower; I'm reasonably certain that I will like it even less if someone were to hold me down and literally cram it down my throat.

I think you are missing the point of corrective rape.  You are overthinking it--a lot.

That's my point: no one with an IQ greater than that of an bruised eggplant could actually claim to truly believe that violent rape would effect an attraction to the rapist's gender.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 265x350]

Never could believe daytime TV myself.

I had to look that up.

You watch that stuff?


No, but apparently a lot of people did, and thought of it as romantic.
 
2013-10-16 12:42:37 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Heya grumpfuff. (I'm just popping in ferra sec.)

I think we can all agree that this Ugandan "minister" is an unchristian dangerous whackjob and is not representative of the typical American Christian.

Also, let's not forget that this is the continent that still does genital mutilation of young women and is riddled with rampant rape with or without some back bush preacher condoning it. I don't know where they get their violent and extreme sexual handgups, but it ain't from the good book.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-16 12:42:54 AM

grumpfuff: That really doesn't change the original story, or it's interpretation.


Sure, and this is the original Batman:

upload.wikimedia.org

But that doesn't mean that the Dark Knight movies are "wrong". They're different stories and the only thing they have in common is that they trace back to the same inspiration.

"They're interpreting our book. And they're doing it wrong! But it's not their fault. It's not their book."

I've seen that Lewis Black bit. It's funny, but he misses the point - they're not "interpreting" somebody else's stories. The term is "co-opted". They've co-opted these stories, which means they now have their own versions, just like the Jews (before they became Jews) would've co-opted elements from various proto-Judaic cults/mythologies on the way to creating Judaism.
 
2013-10-16 12:43:23 AM

Biological Ali: BojanglesPaladin: The angels weren't consenting. The point is that consensual straight sex with a virgin is better than gay ass rape of an angel.

Now personally, I can't speak to one of those, but the one I CAN speak to wasn't bad at all.

The angels themselves were never in any danger (even assuming they can be referred to as sentient beings like humans - I'm not sure how they're classified in Christian mythology).

In fact, the angles themselves wanted to "sleep" out in the open, and it was Lot himself who insisted that they go inside his house, which precipitated that standoff. I don't think the angels themselves ever had any contact with the crowd, either to consent to or rebuff their advances, right up till the point where they blinded everyone.


Biological Ali: BojanglesPaladin: The angels weren't consenting. The point is that consensual straight sex with a virgin is better than gay ass rape of an angel.

Now personally, I can't speak to one of those, but the one I CAN speak to wasn't bad at all.

The angels themselves were never in any danger (even assuming they can be referred to as sentient beings like humans - I'm not sure how they're classified in Christian mythology).

In fact, the angles themselves wanted to "sleep" out in the open, and it was Lot himself who insisted that they go inside his house, which precipitated that standoff. I don't think the angels themselves ever had any contact with the crowd, either to consent to or rebuff their advances, right up till the point where they blinded everyone.



I don't know about danger to the angels, the problem was that the townspeople wanted to rape them. Lot knew what kind of city he lived in, even if the angels didn't (being from out of town and all)  he was hoping to avoid the whole problem by keeping them out of site, but they were seem and the rapey townspeople wouldn't take no for an answer. What the angels 'thought about it' is not the point, although I think we can surmise that the townspeople's actions and list were frowned on what with the blinding and the whole destroying the entire city and killing everyone for their lustful ways and sins of the flesh.
 
2013-10-16 12:47:11 AM

Smackledorfer: Couldn't get past post 150 or so.

It doesn't matter what you, me, or your scholar of choice thinks passage x is about.

What matters is what the people who are followers of religion believe it is about, and how their beliefs are acted on. They ARE christians and they ARE honestly acting on what they believe the bible says.

To view it any other way is to go hiking into a morass of circular reasoning and arguing with different assumptions then wondering why a different conclusion is reached.

If you want an objective view: there is no evidence of a god. Everyone picking up the writings of man and declaring them divine truths, laws, etc is equally silly and merely using their interpretations as a means to their end.


No one was arguing that god exists or that these stories were divine truths(at least not that I'm aware of). We kind of all agreed the minister is an asshole and then moved on to debating interpretation.

For example, in my eyes, I view them as morality tales, just like Aesop's Fables(hence my example from there) that are intended to convey a lesson. I also feel since they are Jewish morality tales, we should go with the Jewish interpretation of them.

But I'm also exhausted, so now I'm going to bed.

/with a special thank you to those I was debating, they showed civility isn't quite dead on Fark yet
 
2013-10-16 12:51:42 AM

BolshyGreatYarblocks: aagrajag: BolshyGreatYarblocks: aagrajag: Rambino: aagrajag:

This doesn't even begin to make sense.

Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D? I don't like cauliflower; I'm reasonably certain that I will like it even less if someone were to hold me down and literally cram it down my throat.

I think you are missing the point of corrective rape.  You are overthinking it--a lot.

That's my point: no one with an IQ greater than that of an bruised eggplant could actually claim to truly believe that violent rape would effect an attraction to the rapist's gender.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 265x350]

Never could believe daytime TV myself.

I had to look that up.

You watch that stuff?

No, but apparently a lot of people did, and thought of it as romantic.


Strange romance, indeed.

I will not deny people their sexual fantasies, but let's leave the unwilling out of it, shall we? (I know you're not advocating this)

Stockholm Syndrome: now in paperback.
 
2013-10-16 12:53:51 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Sadly, many men believe in "corrective rape".  Even in my adult life, I've seen women threatened with it when their fathers found out they were lesbians.  It wasn't uncommon in the 80s to hear about a young woman whose father had gotten one of his friends over to "straighten her out".

There's a reason gays and lesbians are distrustful.  It's not such a long step from "OMGWTFBBQ, look at those ignorant Africans" to "All Hail Saint Reagan, let's go back to the 50s!*"

*50s as defined by TV shows and nostalgia


[citation needed]

That reeks of the "it totally happened to a friend of a friend" thing, like prima noctae and shiat.
 
2013-10-16 12:56:41 AM

grumpfuff: Biological Ali: My position is that the idea of a "proper interpretation" is incoherent when talking about poorly written fiction; the most I'll do is note what the prevailing view is based on what the majority or plurality of actual adherents to that particular religious tradition believe.

Religious scholars(even atheist ones) would disagree with you. No one cares if the story actually happened, what is important is the message the story is trying to convey. Think of it like a morality fable. Let's use Aesop as an example.

We can all agree the story of the tortoise and the hare never happened. But we can still read the story, and agree that the moral of the story is that "Slow and steady wins the race."


Earlier you said only jews can decide what their jewish folklore meant. Now you include non-jewish scholars' opinions as valuable too?

And honestly, wtf defines 'scholar' when we are talking about a book that is a collection of stories? Even if you feel one simply must pore over every scrap of written historical interpretations closer to the time period to claim the right to a valid interpretation, what makes the people of the past right in the first place?

We have one version ostensibly written as close to the time as possible, and all other additions are merely the musings of those who later read it.

With your analogy, if we knew someone wrote the tortoise and the hair in year x, then your accepted scholars would be people claiming their interpretations were correct based on the extra information of other sources from year x+y. As long as y is over a generation away from the event, those additions are worthless to me.

You might as well take the tea party's version of the founding fathers and use that to flesh out their own writings.
 
2013-10-16 12:56:50 AM

Biological Ali: grumpfuff: That really doesn't change the original story, or it's interpretation.

Sure, and this is the original Batman:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x419]

But that doesn't mean that the Dark Knight movies are "wrong". They're different stories and the only thing they have in common is that they trace back to the same inspiration.


HEATHEN!

/comic book purist. ESPECIALLY with the old Batman movies

"They're interpreting our book. And they're doing it wrong! But it's not their fault. It's not their book."

I've seen that Lewis Black bit. It's funny, but he misses the point - they're not "interpreting" somebody else's stories. The term is "co-opted". They've co-opted these stories, which means they now have their own versions, just like the Jews (before they became Jews) would've co-opted elements from various proto-Judaic cults/mythologies on the way to creating Judaism.


And this is where we have to agree to disagree. Like I pointed out in another thread. Jesus was a Jew, and he specifically said he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. By Jesus's own words, and in Christianity's own texts, Christians should be following Jewish law and tradition(including interpretation of their stories).

Bonus: Next time someone quotes Leviticus against gay people, especially if they have polyester on, a tattoo, or are eating a cheeseburger, or any number of any Leviticus laws that Christians don't follow, use this quote. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."(Matthew 5:17)

Either way, I'm tired and going to bed. It has been enjoyable though, and I have to give you a tip of the hat for keeping it civil.
 
2013-10-16 01:04:05 AM

grumpfuff: J. Frank Parnell: I forget exactly where it is in the bible, but some guy has angels visiting him and everyone is crowding around and lusting after them because they're so beautiful, including guys, so he offers the crowd his young daughters to make them go away.

I suppose that could be taken to support what he's saying. It's clearer than most bible verses used to support things.

That's the story of Sodom, and the sin of Sodom was not being treating visitors with respect(they originally wanted to rape the angels). To read it as being in support of rape is blatantly wrong.


About as blatantly wrong as reading the story as condemning homosexuality, yes.  But that doesn't seem to stop millions of Christians.
 
2013-10-16 01:08:44 AM

grumpfuff: Smackledorfer: Couldn't get past post 150 or so.

It doesn't matter what you, me, or your scholar of choice thinks passage x is about.

What matters is what the people who are followers of religion believe it is about, and how their beliefs are acted on. They ARE christians and they ARE honestly acting on what they believe the bible says.

To view it any other way is to go hiking into a morass of circular reasoning and arguing with different assumptions then wondering why a different conclusion is reached.

If you want an objective view: there is no evidence of a god. Everyone picking up the writings of man and declaring them divine truths, laws, etc is equally silly and merely using their interpretations as a means to their end.

No one was arguing that god exists or that these stories were divine truths(at least not that I'm aware of). We kind of all agreed the minister is an asshole and then moved on to debating interpretation.

For example, in my eyes, I view them as morality tales, just like Aesop's Fables(hence my example from there) that are intended to convey a lesson. I also feel since they are Jewish morality tales, we should go with the Jewish interpretation of them.

But I'm also exhausted, so now I'm going to bed.

/with a special thank you to those I was debating, they showed civility isn't quite dead on Fark yet


People aren't arguimg god exists, no.

What they are doing is applying a special layer of interpretive magic that wouldn't fly if applied to any other book.

The bible is a collection of works. ANYONE who reads that collection is equally allowed to interpret what they read. In some cases the text may be clear as day and some alternative viewpoints should accordingly be laughed at. In others it is clear as mud and I see no reason to give one reader extra respect by the simple fact that he is jewish and/or read other works at the time.

You claim it isn't about the existence of god, yet you place a value judgement on opinions based directly on the god-belief of an individual interpreter. That is nonsensical. That special distinction would only be appropriate IF AND ONLY IF god exists and the bible is true AND still doesn't account for human error in the worshipper making the interpretation.
 
2013-10-16 01:14:31 AM

grumpfuff: And this is where we have to agree to disagree. Like I pointed out in another thread. Jesus was a Jew, and he specifically said he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. By Jesus's own words, and in Christianity's own texts, Christians should be following Jewish law and tradition(including interpretation of their stories).


Let me just ask one question, and I think this should get to the heart of what I've been trying to say. You seem like someone who can look at religion as an organic sociological phenomenon - you'd know that the most likely origin for any piece of religious fiction (even if our own historical record doesn't go that far) is that it was adapted and pieced together from earlier versions of the story.

Would these earlier versions (which might have different details and morals) be the more "proper" versions, with the Jewish myths being merely poor "interpretations" of them?
 
2013-10-16 01:17:27 AM
Thanks for the context, jaytkay. It was sorely lacking in the thread.
 
2013-10-16 01:19:50 AM
I love it when assorted yokels argue about what the Bible "means".
A Sears catalogue has more real meaning.
The Bible means, kiddies, whatever the lying, scumsucking con artist trying to rape you with it at the moment wants it to mean.
It's never "meant" anything else.
 
2013-10-16 01:32:55 AM

aagrajag: Even *if* one truly believed that homosexuality government is so evil and terrible that forced heterosexual sexual intercourse government shutdown is necessary to correct it, how could one reasonably believe that its violent application would result in a new-found love of the D Ayn Rand?


FTFY
 
Displayed 50 of 344 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report